Electronic voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Election technology
Terminology
Testing
Technology
Manufacturers

Electronic voting (also known as e-voting) is voting using electronic systems to aid casting and counting votes.

Electronic voting technology can include punched cards, optical scan voting systems and specialized voting kiosks (including self-contained direct-recording electronic voting systems, or DRE). It can also involve transmission of ballots and votes via telephones, private computer networks, or the Internet.

In general, two main types of e-Voting can be identified:[1][2]

  • e-voting which is physically supervised by representatives of governmental or independent electoral authorities (e.g. electronic voting machines located at polling stations);
  • remote e-Voting where voting is performed within the voter's sole influence, and is not physically supervised by representatives of governmental authorities (e.g. voting from one's personal computer, mobile phone, television via the internet (also called i-voting[citation needed])).

Electronic voting technology can speed the counting of ballots and can provide improved accessibility for disabled voters. However, there has been contention, especially in the United States, that electronic voting, especially DRE voting, could facilitate electoral fraud.[citation needed]

Overview[edit]

Electronic voting systems for electorates have been in use since the 1960s[3] when punched card systems debuted. Their first widespread use was in the USA where 7 counties switched to this method for the 1964 presidential election.[4] The newer optical scan voting systems allow a computer to count a voter's mark on a ballot. DRE voting machines which collect and tabulate votes in a single machine, are used by all voters in all elections in Brazil and India, and also on a large scale in Venezuela and the United States. They have been used on a large scale in the Netherlands but have been decommissioned after public concerns.

Internet voting systems have gained popularity and have been used for government elections and referendums in the United Kingdom, Estonia and Switzerland as well as municipal elections in Canada and party primary elections in the United States and France.[5]

There are also hybrid systems that include an electronic ballot marking device (usually a touch screen system similar to a DRE) or other assistive technology to print a voter verified paper audit trail, then use a separate machine for electronic tabulation.

Paper-based electronic voting system[edit]

Sometimes called a "document ballot voting system", paper-based voting systems originated as a system where votes are cast and counted by hand, using paper ballots. With the advent of electronic tabulation came systems where paper cards or sheets could be marked by hand, but counted electronically. These systems included punched card voting, marksense and later digital pen voting systems.

Most recently, these systems can include an Electronic Ballot Marker (EBM), that allow voters to make their selections using an electronic input device, usually a touch screen system similar to a DRE. Systems including a ballot marking device can incorporate different forms of assistive technology.

Direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting system[edit]

Electronic voting machine by Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) used in all Brazilian elections and plebiscites. Photo by Agência Brasil

A direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machine records votes by means of a ballot display provided with mechanical or electro-optical components that can be activated by the voter (typically buttons or a touchscreen); that processes data with computer software; and that records voting data and ballot images in memory components. After the election it produces a tabulation of the voting data stored in a removable memory component and as printed copy. The system may also provide a means for transmitting individual ballots or vote totals to a central location for consolidating and reporting results from precincts at the central location. These systems use a precinct count method that tabulates ballots at the polling place. They typically tabulate ballots as they are cast and print the results after the close of polling.[6]

In 1996, after tests conducted on more than 50 municipalities, the Brazilian Electoral Justice has launched their "voting machine". Since 2000, all Brazilian voters are able to use the electronic ballot boxes to choose their candidates. In 2010 presidential election, which had more than 135 million voters, the result was defined 75 minutes after the end of voting. The electronic ballot box is made up of two micro-terminals (one located in the voting cabin and the other with the voting board representative) which are connected by a 5-meter cable. Externally, the micro-terminals have only a numerical keyboard, which does not accept any command executed by the simultaneous pressure of more than one key. In case of power failure, the internal battery provides the energy or it can be connected to an automotive battery. The Brazilian electronic ballot box serves today as a model for other countries.[7]

In 2002, in the United States, the Help America Vote Act mandated that one handicapped accessible voting system be provided per polling place, which most jurisdictions have chosen to satisfy with the use of DRE voting machines, some switching entirely over to DRE. In 2004, 28.9% of the registered voters in the United States used some type of direct recording electronic voting system,[8] up from 7.7% in 1996.[9]

Electonic Voting Machine (EVM) used in India

In 2004, India had adopted Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) for its elections to the Parliament with 380 million voters had cast their ballots using more than a million voting machines.[10] The Indian EVMs are designed and developed by two Government Owned Defense Equipment Manufacturing Units, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL). Both systems are identical, and are developed to the specifications of Election Commission of India. The System is a set of two devices running on 6V batteries. One device, the Voting Unit is used by the Voter, and another device called the Control Unit is operated by the Electoral Officer. Both units are connected by a 5 meter cable. The Voting unit has a Blue Button for every candidate, the unit can hold 16 candidates, but up to 4 units can be chained, to accommodate 64 candidates. The Control Units has Three buttons on the surface, namely, one button to release a single vote, one button to see the total number of vote cast till now, and one button to close the election process. The result button is hidden and sealed, It cannot be pressed unless the Close button is already pressed.

Public network DRE voting system[edit]

A public network DRE voting system is an election system that uses electronic ballots and transmits vote data from the polling place to another location over a public network. Vote data may be transmitted as individual ballots as they are cast, periodically as batches of ballots throughout the election day, or as one batch at the close of voting. This includes Internet voting as well as telephone voting.

Public network DRE voting system can utilize either precinct count or central count method. The central count method tabulates ballots from multiple precincts at a central location.

Internet voting can use remote locations (voting from any Internet capable computer) or can use traditional polling locations with voting booths consisting of Internet connected voting systems.

Corporations and organizations routinely use Internet voting to elect officers and Board members and for other proxy elections. Internet voting systems have been used privately in many modern nations and publicly in the United States, the UK, Switzerland and Estonia. In Switzerland, where it is already an established part of local referendums, voters get their passwords to access the ballot through the postal service. Most voters in Estonia can cast their vote in local and parliamentary elections, if they want to, via the Internet, as most of those on the electoral roll have access to an e-voting system, the largest run by any European Union country. It has been made possible because most Estonians carry a national identity card equipped with a computer-readable microchip and it is these cards which they use to get access to the online ballot. All a voter needs is a computer, an electronic card reader, their ID card and its PIN, and they can vote from anywhere in the world. Estonian e-votes can only be cast during the days of advance voting. On election day itself people have to go to polling stations and fill in a paper ballot.

Analysis[edit]

ISG TopVoter, a machine designed specifically to be used by voters with disabilities.

Electronic voting systems may offer advantages compared to other voting techniques. An electronic voting system can be involved in any one of a number of steps in the setup, distributing, voting, collecting, and counting of ballots, and thus may or may not introduce advantages into any of these steps. Potential disadvantages exist as well including the potential for flaws or weakness in any electronic component.

Charles Stewart of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that 1 million more ballots were counted in the 2004 USA presidential election than in 2000 because electronic voting machines detected votes that paper-based machines would have missed.[11]

In May 2004 the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report titled "Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents Challenges",[12] analyzing both the benefits and concerns created by electronic voting. A second report was released in September 2005 detailing some of the concerns with electronic voting, and ongoing improvements, titled "Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed".[13]

It has been demonstrated that as voting systems become more complex and include software, different methods of election fraud become possible. Others also challenge the use of electronic voting from a theoretical point of view, arguing that humans are not equipped for verifying operations occurring within an electronic machine and that because people cannot verify these operations, the operations cannot be trusted. Furthermore, some computing experts have argued for the broader notion that people cannot trust any programming they did not author.[14]

Critics of electronic voting, including security analyst Bruce Schneier, note that "computer security experts are unanimous on what to do (some voting experts disagree, but it is the computer security experts who need to be listened to; the problems here are with the computer, not with the fact that the computer is being used in a voting application)...DRE machines must have a voter-verifiable paper audit trails... Software used on DRE machines must be open to public scrutiny"[15] to ensure the accuracy of the voting system. Verifiable ballots are necessary because computers can and do malfunction, and because voting machines can be compromised.

Electronic ballots[edit]

Electronic voting systems may use electronic ballots to store votes in computer memory. Systems which use them exclusively are called DRE voting systems. When electronic ballots are used there is no risk of exhausting the supply of ballots. Additionally, these electronic ballots remove the need for printing of paper ballots, a significant cost.[16] When administering elections in which ballots are offered in multiple languages (in some areas of the United States, public elections are required by the National Voting Rights Act of 1965), electronic ballots can be programmed to provide ballots in multiple languages for a single machine. The advantage with respect to ballots in different languages appears to be unique to electronic voting. For example, King County, Washington's demographics require them under U.S. federal election law to provide ballot access in Chinese. With any type of paper ballot, the county has to decide how many Chinese-language ballots to print, how many to make available at each polling place, etc. Any strategy that can assure that Chinese-language ballots will be available at all polling places is certain, at the very least, to result in a significant number of wasted ballots.[citation needed] (The situation with lever machines would be even worse than with paper: the only apparent way to reliably meet the need would be to set up a Chinese-language lever machine at each polling place, few of which would be used at all.)

Critics argue the need for extra ballots in any language can be mitigated by providing a process to print ballots at voting locations. They argue further, the cost of software validation, compiler trust validation, installation validation, delivery validation and validation of other steps related to electronic voting is complex and expensive, thus electronic ballots are not guaranteed to be less costly than printed ballots.

Accessibility[edit]

A Hart eSlate DRE voting machine with jelly buttons for people with manual dexterity disabilities.

Electronic voting machines can be made fully accessible for persons with disabilities. Punched card and optical scan machines are not fully accessible for the blind or visually impaired, and lever machines can be difficult for voters with limited mobility and strength.[17] Electronic machines can use headphones, sip and puff, foot pedals, joy sticks and other adaptive technology to provide the necessary accessibility.

Organizations such as the Verified Voting Foundation have criticized the accessibility of electronic voting machines[18] and advocate alternatives. Some disabled voters (including the visually impaired) could use a tactile ballot, a ballot system using physical markers to indicate where a mark should be made, to vote a secret paper ballot. These ballots can be designed identically to those used by other voters.[19] However, other disabled voters (including voters with dexterity disabilities) could be unable to use these ballots.

Cryptographic verification[edit]

The concept of election verifiability through cryptographic solutions has emerged in the academic literature to introduce transparency and trust in electronic voting systems.[20][21] It allows voters and election observers to verify that votes have been recorded, tallied and declared correctly, in a manner independent from the hardware and software running the election. Three aspects of verifiability are considered:[22] individual, universal, and eligibility. Individual verifiability allows a voter to check that her own vote is included in the election outcome, universal verifiability allows voters or election observers to check that the election outcome corresponds to the votes cast, and eligibility verifiability allows voters and observers to check that each vote in the election outcome was cast by a uniquely registered voter.

Voter intent[edit]

Electronic voting machines are able to provide immediate feedback to the voter detecting such possible problems as undervoting and overvoting which may result in a spoiled ballot. This immediate feedback can be helpful in successfully determining voter intent.

Transparency[edit]

It has been alleged by groups such as the UK-based Open Rights Group[23][24] that a lack of testing, inadequate audit procedures, and insufficient attention given to system or process design with electronic voting leaves "elections open to error and fraud".

In 2009, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany found that when using voting machines the "verification of the result must be possible by the citizen reliably and without any specialist knowledge of the subject." The DRE Nedap-computers used till then did not fulfill that requirement. The decision did not ban electronic voting as such, but requires all essential steps in elections to be subject to public examinability.[25][26]

Coercion Evidence[edit]

In 2013, researchers from Europe proposed that the electronic voting systems should be coercion evident.[27] There should be a public evidence of the amount of coercion that took place in a particular elections. An internet voting system called "Caveat Coercitor"[28] shows how coercion evidence in voting systems can be achieved.[27]

Audit trails and auditing[edit]

A fundamental challenge with any voting machine is assuring the votes were recorded as cast and tabulated as recorded. Non-document ballot voting systems can have a greater burden of proof. This is often solved with an independently auditable system, sometimes called an Independent Verification, that can also be used in recounts or audits. These systems can include the ability for voters to verify how their votes were cast or further to verify how their votes were tabulated.

A discussion draft argued by researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) states, "Simply put, the DRE architecture’s inability to provide for independent audits of its electronic records makes it a poor choice for an environment in which detecting errors and fraud is important."[29] The report does not represent the official position of NIST, and misinterpretations of the report has led NIST to explain that "Some statements in the report have been misinterpreted. The draft report includes statements from election officials, voting system vendors, computer scientists and other experts in the field about what is potentially possible in terms of attacks on DREs. However, these statements are not report conclusions."[30]

A Diebold Election Systems, Inc. model AccuVote-TSx DRE voting machine with VVPAT attachment.

Various technologies can be used to assure voters that their vote was cast correctly, detect possible fraud or malfunction, and to provide a means to audit the original machine. Some systems include technologies such as cryptography (visual or mathematical), paper (kept by the voter or only verified), audio verification, and dual recording or witness systems (other than with paper).

Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, the creator of the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) concept (as described in her Ph.D. dissertation in October 2000 on the basic voter verifiable ballot system), proposes to answer the auditability question by having the voting machine print a paper ballot or other paper facsimile that can be visually verified by the voter before being entered into a secure location. Subsequently, this is sometimes referred to as the "Mercuri method." To be truly voter-verified, the record itself must be verified by the voter and able to be done without assistance, such as visually or audibly. If the voter must use a bar-code scanner or other electronic device to verify, then the record is not truly voter-verifiable, since it is actually the electronic device that is verifying the record for the voter. VVPAT is the form of Independent Verification most commonly found in elections in the United States.

End-to-end auditable voting systems can provide the voter with a receipt that can be taken home. This receipt does not allow voters to prove to others how they voted, but it does allow them to verify that their vote is included in the tally, all votes were cast by valid voters, and the results are tabulated correctly. End-to-end (E2E) systems include Punchscan, ThreeBallot and Prêt à Voter. Scantegrity is an add-on that extends current optical scan voting systems with an E2E layer. The city of Takoma Park, Maryland used Scantegrity II for its November, 2009 election.[31][32]

Systems that allow the voter to prove how they voted are never used in U.S. public elections, and are outlawed by most state constitutions. The primary concerns with this solution are voter intimidation and vote selling.

An audit system can be used in measured random recounts to detect possible malfunction or fraud. With the VVPAT method, the paper ballot is often treated as the official ballot of record. In this scenario, the ballot is primary and the electronic records are used only for an initial count. In any subsequent recounts or challenges, the paper, not the electronic ballot, would be used for tabulation. Whenever a paper record serves as the legal ballot, that system will be subject to the same benefits and concerns as any paper ballot system.

To successfully audit any voting machine, a strict chain of custody is required.

The solution was first demonstrated (New York City, March 2001) and used (Sacramento, California 2002) by AVANTE International Technology, Inc.. In 2004 Nevada was the first state to successfully implement a DRE voting system that printed an electronic record. The $9.3 million voting system provided by Sequoia Voting Systems included more than 2,600 AVC EDGE touchscreen DREs equipped with the VeriVote VVPAT component. [33] The new systems, implemented under the direction of then Secretary of State Dean Heller replaced largely punched card voting systems and were chosen after feedback was solicited from the community through town hall meetings and input solicited from the Nevada Gaming Control Board.[34]

Hardware[edit]

Inadequately secured hardware can be subject to a physical tampering. Some critics, such as the group "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet" ("We do not trust voting machines"), charge that, for instance, foreign hardware could be inserted into the machine, or between the user and the central mechanism of the machine itself, using a man in the middle attack technique, and thus even sealing DRE machines may not be sufficient protection.[35] This claim is countered by the position that review and testing procedures can detect fraudulent code or hardware, if such things are present, and that a thorough, verifiable chain of custody would prevent the insertion of such hardware or software.[citation needed] Security seals are commonly employed in an attempt to detect tampering, but testing by Argonne National Laboratory and others demonstrates that existing seals can usually be quickly defeated by a trained person using low-tech methods.[36]

Software[edit]

Security experts, such as Bruce Schneier, have demanded that voting machine source code should be publicly available for inspection.[37] Others have also suggested publishing voting machine software under a free software license as is done in Australia.[38] Software such as Sammaty come under GNU GPL, which means their source code is publicly available and hence transparent.[39]

Testing and certification[edit]

One method to any error with voting machines is parallel testing, which are conducted on the Election Day with randomly picked machines. The ACM published a study showing that, to change the outcome of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, only 2 votes in each precinct would have needed to been changed.[40]

Other[edit]

Criticisms can be mitigated by review and testing procedures to detect fraudulent code or hardware, if such things are present, and thorough a verifiable chain of custody to prevent the insertion of such hardware or software.

Benefits can include reduced tabulation times and an increase of participation (voter turnout), particularly through the use of Internet voting.

Those in opposition suggest alternate vote counting systems, citing Switzerland (as well as many other countries), which uses paper ballots exclusively, suggesting that electronic voting is not the only means to get a rapid count of votes. A country of a little over 7 million people, Switzerland publishes a definitive ballot count in about six hours. In villages, the ballots are even counted manually.

Critics also note that it becomes difficult or impossible to verify the identity of a voter remotely, and that the introduction of public networks become more vulnerable and complex.

It is not yet clear whether the total cost of ownership with electronic voting is lower than other systems.

Astronauts in orbit[edit]

Texas law has allowed American astronauts who cannot vote in person and are unable to vote via absentee ballot, such as those aboard the International Space Station and Mir space station, to cast their ballots in federal elections electronically from orbit since 1997. Ballots are sent via secure email to the Johnson Spaceflight Center and then passed on the astronauts' home counties in Texas.[41][42]

Examples[edit]

Polling place electronic voting or Internet voting examples have taken place in Australia,[43] Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, the European Union, France, Germany, India,[10] Ireland,[citation needed] Italy, the Netherlands (Rijnland Internet Election System), Norway, Peru, Romania, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, and the Philippines.

Documented problems[edit]

  • Fairfax County, Virginia, November 4, 2003. Some voters complained that they would cast their vote for a particular candidate and the indicator of that vote would go off shortly after.[45]
  • The Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) TSx voting system disenfranchised many voters in Alameda and San Diego Counties during the March 2, 2004 California presidential primary due to non-functional voter card encoders.[46] On April 30 California's secretary of state Kevin Shelley decertified all touch-screen machines and recommended criminal prosecution of Diebold Election Systems.[47] The California Attorney-General decided against criminal prosecution, but subsequently joined a lawsuit against Diebold for fraudulent claims made to election officials. Diebold settled that lawsuit by paying $2.6 million.[48] On February 17, 2006 the California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson then recertified Diebold Election Systems DRE and Optical Scan Voting System.[49]
  • Omesh Saigal, an IIT alumnus and IAS officer blew the top of the Election Commissioner Navin Chawla in front of the whole nation when he successfully demonstrated that the 2009 elections in India when Congress Party of India came back to power might be rigged. This forced the election commission to review the current EVMs and brought bad reputation for Mr. Navin Chawla.[51]
  • Problems in the United States general elections, 2006:
    • During early voting in Miami, Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale, Florida in October 2006 three votes intended to be recorded for Democratic candidates were displaying as cast for Republican. Election officials attributed it to calibration errors in the touch screen of the voting system.[56]
    • In Pennsylvania, a computer programming error forced some to cast paper ballots. In Indiana, 175 precincts also resorted to paper. Counties in those states also extended poll hours to make up for delays.[57]
    • Cuyahoga County, Ohio: The Diebold computer server froze and stopped counting votes then the printers jammed so paper copies could not be retrieved for many votes and there was no way to be sure of the accuracy of the votes when the votes were being counted.[58]
    • Waldenburg, Arkansas: The touch screen computer tallied zero votes for one mayoral candidate who confirmed that he certainly voted for himself and therefore there would be a minimum of one vote, this is a case of disappearing votes on touchscreen machines.[57]
    • Sarasota, Florida: There was an 18,000 person "undervote" in a congressional election.[57] The subsequent investigation[59] found that the undervote was not caused by software error. Poor ballot design was widely acknowledged as the cause of the undervote.
  • Instances of faulty technology and security issues surrounding these machines were documented on August 1, 2001 in the Brennan Center at New York University Law School. NY University Law School released a report with more than 60 examples of e-voting machine failures in 26 states in 2004 and 2006. Examples included Spanish language ballots that were cast by voters but not counted in Sacramento in 2004.[citation needed]
  • In Finland, the Supreme Administrative Court declared invalid the results of a pilot electronic vote in three municipalities, and ordered a rerun of the municipal elections (Karkkila, Kauniainen and Vihti). The system had an usability problem where the messages were ambiguous on whether the vote had been cast. In a total of 232 cases (2% of votes), voters had logged in, selected their vote but not confirmed it, and left the booth; the votes were not recorded.[60] Following the failure of the pilot election, the Finnish government has abandoned plans to continue electronic voting based on voting machines. In the memo[61] it was concluded, that the voting machine is not developed any more, and Finnish government will follow the development of different electronic voting systems worldwide. The earliest possible time for introducing a new electronic voting system could be the 2016 municipality elections, and it could be an Internet system.
  • 2008 United States Elections:
    • Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas: Touch screen voting machines flipped votes in early voting trials.[62]
    • Humboldt County, California: A security flaw erased 197 votes from the computer database.[63]

California top to bottom review[edit]

In May 2007, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen commissioned a "Top to Bottom review" of all electronic voting systems in the state. She engaged computer security experts led by the University of California to perform security evaluations of voting system source code as well as "red teams" running "worst case" Election Day scenarios attempting to identify vulnerabilities to tampering or error. The Top to Bottom review also included a comprehensive review of manufacturer documentation as well as a review of accessibility features and alternative language requirements.

The end results of the tests was released in the four detailed Secretary of State August 3, 2007 resolutions (for Diebold Election Systems, Hart InterCivic, Sequoia Voting Systems and Elections Systems and Software, Inc.) and updated October 25, 2007 revised resolutions for Diebold and Sequoia voting systems.[64] The security experts found significant security flaws in all of the manufacturers' voting systems, flaws that could allow a single non-expert to compromise an entire election.

On August 3, 2007 Bowen decertified machines that were tested in her top to bottom view including the ES&S InkaVote machine, which was not included in the review because the company submitted it past the deadline for testing. The report issued July 27, 2007 was conducted by the expert "red team" attempting to detect the levels of technological vulnerability. Another report on August 2, 2007 was conducted by a source code review team to detect flaws in voting system source code. Both reports found that three of the tested systems fell far short of the minimum requirements specified in the 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). Some of the systems tested were conditionally recertified with new stringed security requirements imposed.[65] The companies in question have until the February 2008 California Presidential Primaries to fix their security issues and insure that election results can be closely audited.

The Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) AccuVote-TSx voting system was studied by a group of Princeton University computer scientists in 2006. Their results showed that the AccuVote-TSx was insecure and could be "installed with vote-stealing software in under a minute." The scientists also said that machines can transmit computer viruses from one to another "during normal pre- and post-election activity."[66]

2000 presidential election in Florida[edit]

Punched cards received considerable notoriety in 2000 when their uneven use in Votomatic style systems in Florida was alleged to have affected the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Invented by Joseph P. Harris, Votomatic was manufactured for a time under license by IBM. William Rouverol, who built the prototype and wrote patents, stated that after the patents expired in 1982, lower quality machines had appeared on the market. The machines used in Florida had five times as many errors as a true Votomatic, he said.[67]

Punched-card-based voting systems, the Votomatic system in particular, use special cards where each possible hole is pre-scored, allowing perforations to be made by the voter pressing a stylus through a guide in the voting machine. A problem with this system is the incomplete punch; this can lead to a smaller hole than expected, or to a mere slit in the card, or to a mere dimple in the card, or to a hanging chad. This technical problem was claimed by the Democratic Party to have influenced the 2000 U.S. presidential election in the state of Florida; critics claimed that punched card voting machines were primarily used in Democratic areas and that hundreds of ballots were not read properly or were disqualified due to incomplete punches, which allegedly tipped the vote in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore.

Other punched card voting systems use a metal hole-punch mechanism that does not suffer nearly as much from this fault, although most states have eliminated punched card voting systems of all types after the 2000 Florida experience. South Korea still predominantly uses punched card ballots.[citation needed]

Recommendations for improvement[edit]

In December 2005 the US Election Assistance Commission unanimously adopted the 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, which significantly increase security requirements for voting systems and expand access, including opportunities to vote privately and independently, for individuals with disabilities. The guidelines took effect in December 2007 replacing the 2002 Voting System Standards (VSS) developed by the Federal Election Commission.

Some groups such as the Open Voting Consortium believe that to restore voter confidence and to reduce the potential for fraud, all electronic voting systems must be completely available to public scrutiny.

Also proposed is the requirement for use of open public standards and specifications such as the Election Markup Language (EML) standard developed by OASIS and now under consideration by ISO (see documents and schemas).[68] These can provide consistent processes and mechanisms for managing and performing elections using computer systems.

Legislation[edit]

In the summer of 2004, the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Association of Information Technology Professionals issued a nine-point proposal for national standards for electronic voting.[69] In an accompanying article, the committee's chair, Charles Oriez, described some of the problems that had arisen around the country.[70][71]

Legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress regarding electronic voting, including the Nelson-Whitehouse bill. This bill would appropriate as much as 1 billion dollars to fund states' replacement of touch screen systems with optical scan voting system. The legislation also addresses requiring audits of 3% of precincts in all federal elections. It also mandates some form of paper trail audits for all electronic voting machines by the year 2012 on any type of voting technology.[72]

Another bill, HR.811 (The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003), proposed by Representative Rush D. Holt, Jr., a Democrat from New Jersey, would act as an amendment to the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and require electronic voting machines to produce a paper audit trail for every vote.[73] The U.S. Senate companion bill version introduced by Senator Bill Nelson from Florida on November 1, 2007, necessitates the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to continue researching and to provide methods of paper ballot voting for those with disabilities, those who do not primarily speak English, and those who do not have a high literacy rating. Also, it requires states to provide the federal office with audit reports from the hand counting of the voter verified paper ballots. Currently, this bill has been turned over to the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and a vote date has not been set.[74]

During 2008, Congressman Holt, because of an increasing concern regarding the insecurities surrounding the use of electronic voting technology, submitted additional bills to Congress regarding the future of electronic voting. One, called the "Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008" (HR5036), states that the General Services Administration will reimburse states for the extra costs of providing paper ballots to citizens, and the costs needed to hire people to count them.[75] This bill was introduced to the House on January 17, 2008.[76] This bill estimates that $500 million will be given to cover costs of the reconversion to paper ballots; $100 million given to pay the voting auditors; and $30 million given to pay the hand counters. This bill provides the public with the choice to vote manually if they do not trust the electronic voting machines.[75] A voting date has not yet been determined.

Popular culture[edit]

In the 2006 film Man of the Year starring Robin Williams, the character played by Williams—a Jon Stewart-like comedic host of political talk show—wins the election for President of the United States when a software error in the electronic voting machines produced by the fictional manufacturer Delacroy causes votes to be tallied inaccurately.

In Runoff, a 2007 novel by Mark Coggins, a surprising showing by the Green Party candidate in a San Francisco Mayoral election forces a runoff between him and the highly favored establishment candidate—a plot line that closely parallels the actual results of the 2003 election. When the private-eye protagonist of the book investigates at the behest of a powerful Chinatown businesswoman, he determines that the outcome was rigged by someone who defeated the security on the city's newly installed e-voting system.[77]

"Hacking Democracy" is a 2006 documentary film shown on HBO. Filmed over three years, it documents American citizens investigating anomalies and irregularities with electronic voting systems that occurred during America's 2000 and 2004 elections, especially in Volusia County, Florida. The film investigates the flawed integrity of electronic voting machines, particularly those made by Diebold Election Systems and culminates in the hacking of a Diebold election system in Leon County, Florida.

Electronic voting manufacturers[edit]

Academic efforts[edit]

Open Counting

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Buchsbaum, T. (2004). "E-voting: International developments and lessons learnt". Proceedings of Electronic Voting in Europe Technology, Law, Politics and Society. Lecture Notes in Informatics. Workshop of the ESF TED Programme together with GI and OCG. 
  2. ^ Zissis, D.; Lekkas (April 2011). "Securing e-Government and e-Voting with an open cloud computing architecture". Government Information Quarterly 28 (2): 239–251. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.010. 
  3. ^ Bellis, Mary. The History of Voting Machines. About.com.
  4. ^ Saltman, Roy.EFFECTIVE USE OF COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY IN VOTE-TALLYING. NIST.
  5. ^ REMOTE VOTING TECHNOLOGY, Chris Backert e-Government Consulting
  6. ^ U.S. Election Assistance Commission. "2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines" (PDF). 
  7. ^ Brazilian Superior Electoral Court. "Electronic voting". 
  8. ^ Kids Voting Central Ohio. "A Short History of Voting in the United States". 
  9. ^ U.S. Federal Election Commission. "Direct Recording Electronic information page". 
  10. ^ a b "Know Your Electronic Voting Machine" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-09-01. 
  11. ^ Friel, Brian (November 2006)Let The Recounts Begin, National Journal
  12. ^ Government Accountability Office (May 2004) "Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents Challenges"
  13. ^ Government Accountability Office (September 2005) "Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed"
  14. ^ Thompson, Ken (August 1984) Reflections on Trusting Trust
  15. ^ Schneier, Bruce (September 2004), openDemocracy What’s wrong with electronic voting machines?
  16. ^ [1][dead link]
  17. ^ "Protecting the Integrity and Accessibility of Voting in 2004 and Beyond". People for the American Way
  18. ^ [2][dead link]
  19. ^ "Ballot Templates." (tactile ballots) International Foundation for Election Systems
  20. ^ Juels, Ari; Dario Catalano and Markus Jakobsson (November 2002). "Coercion-Resistant Electronic Elections". Cryptology ePrint Archive (165). Retrieved 2 May 2012. 
  21. ^ Chaum, David; Peter Y. A. Ryan and Steve Schneider (2005). "A Practical Voter-Verifiable Election Scheme". ESORICS'05: 10th European Symposium On Research In Computer Security. LNCS 3679: 118–139. 
  22. ^ Kremer, Steve; Mark Ryan and Ben Smyth (2010). "Election verifiability in electronic voting protocols". ESORICS'10: 15th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security 6345: 389–404. 
  23. ^ "ORG Election Report highlights problems with voting technology used". Openrightsgroup.org. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  24. ^ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/07/02/org-verdict-on-london-elections-insufficient-evidence-to-declare-confidence-in-results/
  25. ^ "Ruling of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 3 March 2009". Bundesverfassungsgericht.de. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  26. ^ "German Federal Constitutional Court, Press release no. 19/2009 of 3 March 2009". Bundesverfassungsgericht.de. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  27. ^ a b Gurchetan S Grewal, Mark D Ryan, Sergiu Bursuc, Peter Y A Ryan. Caveat Coercitor: coercion-evidence in electronic voting. 34th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2013
  28. ^ http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2013/papers/4977a367.pdf
  29. ^ "Draft white paper on VVPR" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  30. ^ [3][dead link]
  31. ^ "Pilot Study of the Scantegrity II Voting System Planned for the 2009 Takoma Park City Election". 
  32. ^ Hardesty, Larry. "Cryptographic voting debuts". MIT news. Retrieved 2009-11-30. 
  33. ^ ‘Paper trail’ voting system used in Nevada, Associated Press Sept. 7, 2004
  34. ^ Nevada improves odds with e-vote, CNN October 29, 2004
  35. ^ "Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting computer a security analysis (chapter 7.1)" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  36. ^ "Defeating Existing Tamper-Indicating Seals". Argonne National Laboratory. 
  37. ^ "The Problem with Electronic Voting Machines". Schneier.com. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  38. ^ "The electronic voting and counting system". Elections.act.gov.au. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  39. ^ "Sammaty Election Engine under GNU GPL v3". 
  40. ^ Di Franco, A., Petro, A., Shear, E., and Vladimirov, V. 2004. Small vote manipulations can swing elections. Commun. ACM 47, 10 (Oct. 2004), 43-45. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1022594.1022621
  41. ^ "Astronauts beam votes home". CNN. 2 November 2010. 
  42. ^ James, Kate (2 November 2010). "Astronauts Cast Vote From Space Thanks to 1997 Texas Law". Gather.com. Retrieved 2 November 2010. 
  43. ^ Ron McCallum, 'Participating in Political and Public life' (2011) 32 AltLJ 80. [4]
  44. ^ Dr. R. Mercuri (2002-09-11). "Florida Primary 2002: Back to the Future". Notablesoftware.com. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  45. ^ Cho, David; Rein, Lisa (November 18, 2003). "Fairfax To Probe Voting Machines (Washington Post, November 18, 2003)". Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  46. ^ Greg Lucas (May 1, 2004). "State bans electronic balloting in 4 counties; Touch-screen firm accused of 'reprehensible,' illegal conduct". San Francisco Chronicle. 
  47. ^ Hardy, Michael (March 3, 2004). "California nixes e-voting". Fcw.com. 
  48. ^ Associated Press (November 10, 2004). "Diebold to Settle E-Voting Suit". Wired.com. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  49. ^ State of California Secretary of State (February 17, 2006). Approval of use of Diebold Election Systems, Inc.
  50. ^ Kim, Zetter (2004-03-19). "E-Vote Snafu in California County". Wired. 
  51. ^ "Was Election 2009 rigged? - Rediff.com India News". Ia.rediff.com. 2009-07-04. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  52. ^ "Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties | Rijksoverheid.nl". Minbzk.nl. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  53. ^ "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet" (in Dutch). Wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  54. ^ "English – Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet". Wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  55. ^ AP via International Herald Tribune (October 30, 2006) Dutch government scraps plans to use voting computers in 35 cities including Amsterdam
  56. ^ [5][dead link]
  57. ^ a b c [6][dead link]
  58. ^ Thompson, Clive (January 6, 2008). "Can You Count on Voting Machines?". The New York Times. Retrieved March 29, 2010. 
  59. ^ "2006 Congressional District 13 Race - Florida Division of Elections - Department of State". Election.dos.state.fl.us. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  60. ^ "KHO: Kuntavaalit uusiksi Vihdissä, Karkkilassa ja Kauniaisissa". YLE Uutiset, Talous ja politiikka. YLE. 2009-04-09. Retrieved 2009-04-09. [dead link]
  61. ^ "Sähköisen äänestyksen kehittämistä ei jatketa nykyiseltä pohjalta". Finnish Government. 2010-01-08. Retrieved 2013-03-22. 
  62. ^ "Technology Review". Technology Review. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  63. ^ Grossman, Wendy M (30 April 2009). "Why machines are bad at counting votes". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-07-14. 
  64. ^ CA SoS Top to Bottom Review Retrieved March 2, 2012
  65. ^ Simons, Barbara. August 13, 2007. "California: The Top to Bottom Review." The Voter. Retrieved November 27, 2007.
  66. ^ Riordan, Theresa. 13 September 2006. [7] Princeton University. Retrieved March 6, 2008.
  67. ^ "IGS Votomatic Prototype Goes to the Smithsonian" (– Scholar search). Institute of Governmental Studies, Public Affairs Report (University of California, Berkeley) 42 (4). Winter 2001. [dead link]
  68. ^ "Index of /election/eml/v5.0/". Docs.oasis-open.org. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  69. ^ "Legislative Committee Resolution Awaiting BOD Approval". (July 2004). Information Executive
  70. ^ [8][dead link]
  71. ^ [9][dead link]
  72. ^ Padgett, Tim (2007-11-03). "Voting Out E-Voting Machines". TIME. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  73. ^ AlterNet / By Steven Rosenfeld (2007-08-07). "The Fallout From California's Ban on Electronic Voting Machines". Alternet. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  74. ^ "Bill Summary & Status - 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) - S.2295 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)". Thomas.loc.gov. 2007-11-01. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  75. ^ a b http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/legislation/SummaryFlyer5036.pdf
  76. ^ "H.R.5036: Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 - U.S. Congress". OpenCongress. 2008-04-15. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  77. ^ "January Magazine, "The Fix Is In"". Januarymagazine.com. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 

External links[edit]